U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office ofthe Clerk
5/07 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 220./ I

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SNA

8940 Fourwinds Drive, 5th Floor
San Antonio, TX 78239

Name: SANDOVAL-LANDERO, SEIDi E ...

A 088-056-174
Date of this notice: 11/20/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,

DonrtL CtvVtJ
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.
Guendelsberger, John
O'Leary, Brian M.

Use rte am: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Seidi Elda Sandoval-Landero, A088 056 174 (BIA Nov. 20, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Tarigo, Thomas John

Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo
617 S. Olive Street, Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

. U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for llfflnigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A088 056 174-SanAntonio, TX

Date:

In re: SEIDi ELDA SANDOVAL-LANDERO

NOV 2 0 2015
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS: Cori White

Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Reopening
The respondent, a native and citizen of Belize, was ordered removed in absentia on
March 24, 2008. On December 2, 2013, the respondent filed the instant motion, which the
Immigration Judge denied on April 18, 2014. The respondent filed a timely appeal of that
decision. The appeal will be sustained, the in absentia order will be vacated, proceedings will be
reopened, and the record will be remanded.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including findings as to the
credibility of testimony, under the clearly erroneous standard. 8 C.F .R 1003 .1(d)(3)(i). The
Board reviews questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from
decisions oflmmigration Judges de novo. 8 C.F.R 1003. l(d)(J)(ii).
Upon de novo review of the record and in light of the totality of circumstances presented in
this case, we conclude that the respondent demonstrated that reopening is warranted. 1 See
sections 240(b)(5)(C)(i); (e)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A
1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(l). We will therefore sustain the respondent's appeal and remand the
record for further proceedings.
,
ORDER: The respondent s appeal is sustained, the in absentia order is vacated, proceedings
are reopened and the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings and
for the entry of a new decision.

Among other factors, we have considel'1

he respondent's argument that she did not appear
for her hearing as the result of ongoing physical and mental trauma inflicted by the father of her
children.

Cite as: Seidi Elda Sandoval-Landero, A088 056 174 (BIA Nov. 20, 2015)
G.... .... -....r.

1:.

c:c;aa

. :1tW -

i1!'A

VJJiJ

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT
800 DOLOROSA, SUITE 300
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78207

IN THE MATTER OF
SANDOVAL-LANDERO, SEIDi ELDA

FILE NUMBER A 088 056 174

APRIL 22, 2014

__ UNABLE TO FORWARD - NO ADDRESS PROVIDED

ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION
IS FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRITTEN
DECISION. SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY
PREPARING YOUR APPEAL. YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, ATTACHED DOCUMENTS AND
FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST MUST BE MAILED TO:
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
P. 0. BOX 8530
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT
OF YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL
HEARING. THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 242B(c)(3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT,
8 U.S. C. SECTION 1252B(c)(3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c)(6),
8 U.S. C. SECTION 1229a(c)(6) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION TO
REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT:
IMMIGRATION COURT
800 DOLOROSA, SUITE 300
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78207
_OTHER:________________________
CC:

ASSISTANT DISTRICT COUNSEL

8940 FOURWINDS DR., 5TH FL
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78239

;:;q::;:;;r,!M ...... .

COURT CLERK

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

THOMAS J. TARIGO, ESQ.

617 S. OLIVE STREET, STE. 610
LOS ANGELES, CA 90014

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Immigration Court
File AOBB 056 174

Seidi Elda Sandoval-Landero

Order of the
Immigration Judge

The respondent in the above captioned case was ordered removed from the United
States on March 24, 2008 following a hearing held in absentia when she did not appear
for the proceeding. On December 2, 2013 the respondent, with counsel, filed a motion
to reopen the proceeding, alleging that the respondent did not appear due to
"exceptional circumstances", that the untimely motion should be considered timely by
"equitable tolling" and that the case should be reopened sua sponte at the respondent's
request. The motion was not filed jointly by respondent and USICE. The respondent is
required by 240(b} (5} (C} (i} of the Immigration & Nationality Act to file any motion
to reopen within 180 days and to demonstrate that the failure to appear was because of
exceptional circumstances. See Title 8 CFR 1003.23(b) (4) (ii).
There is no dispute that the motion is untimely.
See Title 8 CFR
1003.23(b) (4) (ii}. The 100 th day was in September, 2008. There is therefore no
jurisdiction to reopen the case for "exceptional circumstances causing the failure to
appear".
Counsel has provided no authority for the Immigration Court to exercise
''equitable tolling". The Immigration Court is an administrative hearing tribunal. As
such, it is strictly limited to only those powers delegated to it by the Attorney
General. Both the statute and the Attorney General's delegating regulations strictly
limit the time when a motion to reopen for "exceptional circumstances" can be filed.
As this motion is outside that time limit, the Immigration Court is without
jurisdiction to consider it and it will be denied as untimely. While counsel also
appears to argue that the case should be reopened on the Court's motion at his request,
the respondent's unhappy personal life as currently set forth is not entirely
consistent with the narrative she gave when first apprehended by the USCBP and it is
clear that the only impetus for the current motion is her re-apprehension by
immigration authorities. This would not be an appropriate case for the utilization of
any device to circumvent the regulations under the standards set in Matter of J- J-,
21 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997).
As the respondent has not met her burden of demonstrating jurisdiction to reopen
her case or induced the Court to reopen on its own motion for the reasons set forth
above, the motion and accompanying request for a stay of removal shall therefore be,
and are hereby, DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Immigration Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED BY: MAIL (M)
PERSONAL SERVICE (P)
TO: [ J ALIEN [ J ALIEN c/of.ki stodial Officer
MALlEN'S ATT/HEP [p. S
DATE:
BY: COURT STAFF&l)
Attachments: [ J EOIR-33 [ 1 EOIR-28
[ I Legal Services List [ ] Other

Date: April 18, 2014

Place: San Antonio, Texas

t/-d/t,.J'-f

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

In Removal Proceedings

In the Matter of